$C    13    51b 


CD 
C\J 

O 

UJ 
>- 


LIBRARY 

OF    THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


The  Decennial  Publication's 


ON  THE  TEXT  OF  CHAUCER'S  PARLEMENT 

OF  FOULES 


BY 


ELEANOR  PRESGOTT  HAMMOND 


The  Decennial  Publications 

V.'SM  i  lie  i-'resiaent  s  lieport.     A.  AaniuiisTratiou. 

VoiA  ^:  riie  President's  Report.    P>.   Publications  ol  the  Members  of  the  University. 

txvt:sttgattoxs 

wi[K  iM    n>(-<iirii   wi    !■■■  :    viT-jiiiriir'  :         ■•'    1be 

.    .     ,._^„;lie  TheolOgT.  riwimb  "Ric;torv.    Pr:irti(:il  ThiH^loi'V. 
Pliilnsonhv.  Fxlnentioi: 

i-^eouomy,  l-'oiitical  bcieuce.  History,  boeioiogy. 

-Semitic  Langua^s  And  Literatures,  Biblical  and  Patristic  tlreil^.  C'^mparalivf 
IJeliirion. 

\     ,;  Literature.  Latin  Language  and  Literati'.  uukI 

1  Uomparative  Philology,  CIassi(ail  Archaeology. 

Language  and  Literature,  Gei'manic  Language  and  Literature,  English, 


Physics,  * 

,1,^..•v     P.nttMiv,   P.rf)i,>1.u_>-v     P.!iftorir>](Xn'. 

SUPPLEMENTARY  VOLUM  KS 

A  series  of  volumes  emlxjdying  original  research,  consisting  of  systematic  t  unpublished 

documents,  and  the  like.    Size,  octavo. 


1.  i:>03.     The  mparate  articles  constituting  the 
I'ari./  Vol  times,  rcilf  be  published  assoov  asreadi/. 


THE    UNIVERSITY  OF   CHICAGO 

rODMOBD   BV  JOHN   O.  ROCKBriLLBft 


The  Decennial  Publications 


ON  THE  TEXT  OF  CHAUCER'S  PARLEMENT 

OF  FOULES 

BY 

ELEANOR  PRESCOTT  HAMMOND 

DOCBNT  IN  THE  DKPAKTMENT  OF  ENOLIBH 


PRINTED  FROM  VOLUME  VH 


CHICAGO 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 

1902 


fyum 


Copyright  1902 

BY  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO 


PBINTED  APRIL  10,  1902 


ON  THE  TEXT  OF  CHAUCER'S  PARLEMENT  OF  FOULES 

Elbanob  Pbbsoott  Hammond 

In  the  Globe  edition  of  Chaucer's  works,  published  by  The  Macmillan  Com- 
pany in  1898,  and  edited  by  A.  W.  Pollard,  M.  H.  Liddell,  and  others,  the  Par^ 
lement  of  Foules  is,  with  the  other  minor  poems,  supervised  by  Mr.  H.  F.  Heath. 
In  his  brief  introduction  to  the  poem  Mr.  Heath  prints  the  genealogical  tree  of  most 
of  the  manuscripts  as  it  was  indicated  by  Koch  in  Anglia,  IV,  Anz.,  p.  97,  remarking 
that  he  agrees  with  Koch  in 
its  construction.  The  dia- 
gram is  as  follows : ' 

But  a  minute  collation 
of  the  entire  text  of  the 
Parlement  of  Foules  will,  it 
seems  to  me,  lead  a  student 
to  several  conclusions  :  (1) 
that  the  above  genealogy 
must  be  modified  in  detail  ; 
(2)  that,  even  were  it  ac- 
cepted, some  of  the  read-  / 
ings  elected  by  Mr.  Heath 
are  unjustified  ;  (3)  that,  if  the  results  here  arrived  at  be  correct,  the  discussion  of 
Chaucerian  metre  must  be  reopened.     These  conclusions  I  shall  examine  in  full  below. 

Examples  of  the  second  point  may  be  given  at  once:  e.  g.,  in  line  65,  of  the 
two  main  (and  four  secondary)  groups  as  drawn  out  by  Mr.  Heath,  one  main  and 
an  opposed  secondary  group  read  or  indicate  And  was  sumdel  ful  of  harde  grace, 
the  other  sub-group  having,  plainly  by  alteration  in  its  own  immediate  source,  the 
reading  And  ful  of  turment  and  of  harde  grace.  This  latter,  adopted  by  Mr.  Heath 
into  a  nominally  critical  text,  cannot  be  supported  on  the  manuscript  evidence.' 

Other  examples  of  modification  necessary  to  a  critical  text  are  much  less  radical ; 
indeed,  an  interesting  feature  of  this  examination  ha^  been  the  general  correspondence 
of  the  resultant  text,  so  far  as  verbal  similarity  goes,  with  those  printed  by  Professor 
Skeat  (Student's  Chaucer)  and  Mr.  Heath.  A  still  more  interesting  feature  has  been 
the  frequency  with  which  Professor  Skeat,  following  what  I  may  term  the  method  of 
genial  intuitivity,  has  arrived  at  readings  in  harmony  with  critical  deduction,  while 
Mr.  Heath,  working  with  a  genealogy  of  the  manuscripts  before  his  eyes,  has  deviated. 
A  few  examples  illustrating  these  points  are  subjoined: 

1 1  hare  altered  the  lettering  of  this  diagram  to  oorre-       cannot  agree.    I  consider  that  Ff  omitted  ful,  and  that  Qg 
spond  with  that  here  used.  distorted  the  reading ;  cf.  the  tendencies  of  these  mana- 

3  With  Koch's  oonjectore,  Engl'  Stud.,  XXYII,  p.  49,  I       scripts  as  discussed  below. 

s 


118320 


4         Text  of  Ohauoeb's  Pablement  of  Foules 

Line  7.  Critical  text :  Nat  wot  I  wet  wher  that  I  flete  or  synke.  So  Heath ; 
Skeat,  wlier  that  I  wake  or  wynke. 

Line  54.  Critical  text:  Meneth  hut  a  maner  deth  what  wey  we  trace.  Skeat 
and  Heath,  Nis  hut,  etc.,  the  reading  of  Gg  and  Cax'  only.     Cf.  Selden.' 

Line  142.  Critical  text :  Of  which  I  gan  astonyd  to  beholde.  Heath  and  Skeat, 
The  which,  etc.,  the  reading  of  one  sub-group,  opposed  by  its  fellow  and  by  the  other 
main  group.  Skeat,  a  stounde,  the  reading  of  one  sub-group,  the  remainder  of  that 
main  group  showing  stonde  and  the  opposed  main  group  astonyd. 

Line  150.  Critical  text:  Ne  hath  no  myght  to  meve  to  nor  fro.  Both  editors. 
That  hath,  etc.,  the  reading  of  the  C  group,  while  the  A  group  shows  the  reading 
above  printed.  Since,  according  to  Mr.  Heath,  the  A  is  the  better  group  of  manu- 
scripts, we  expect  to  see  its  readings  followed  where  it  and  C  are  opposed. 

Line  205.  Both  editors  follow  GgFfCax  in  omitting  a  ther  present  in  other 
texts.     But  note  that  in  line  119  both  editors  passed  a  reading  offered  by  GgFfHh. 

Line  207.  Critical  text:  No  man  may  ther  wexe  seke  ne  olde.  Skeat  and  Heath, 
Ne  no  man,  etc.,  the  reading  of  a  branch  of  one  sub-group. 

Line  214.  Critical  text:  And  wille  hys  doghter  tempred  al  the  while.  Skeat, 
And  wel  .  .  .  .  al  the  whyle;  Heath,  And  Wille  .  .  .  .  al  this  while.  Skeat's  wel  is 
from  Gg  and  S,  the  manuscripts  FfHDTLt  showing  a  while,  whiele,  whill,  which 
is  plainly  influenced  by  the  last  word  in  the  line.  According  to  Boccaccio,  the 
daughter  of  Cupid  was  Voluttade  —  Voluptas.  If  Chaucer,  or  the  scribe  in  whose  text 
he  read  Boccaccio,  chanced  to  misinterpret  Voluttade  as  Volutade  or  Voluntade,  the 
transition  to  Will  is  inevitable.  The  this  in  Heath's  text  is  found  in  one  sub-group 
and  one  branch-group  of  A,  the  other  branch-group  and  the  C  manuscripts  showing  the. 

Line  278.  Critical  text:  To  whom  on  knees  two  yonge  folk  ther  criede.  Both 
editors,  two  yonge  folkes  cryde.  The  ther  is  omitted  by  C  and  by  one  A  group 
manuscript,  the  HRSCax  antecedent.  As  both  these  texts  have  a  tendency  to  omit 
(see  below),  and  as  a  coincident  insertion  of  ther  by  three  A  group  manuscripts, 
GgFf,  Hh,  P^Jo,  is  less  credible  than  such  coincident  omission,  the  ther  is  retained. 
Observe  that  it  appears  in  the  GgFf  pair,  a  pair  whose  isolated  readings  are  frequently 
adopted  by  one  or  both  editors,  but  are  here  disregarded  by  them. 

Line  285.  Critical  text:  Of  many  a  storye  of  which  I  touche  shal.  So  Skeat. 
Heath,  Ful  many,  etc.,  the  GgFfCax  reading,  occurring  in  those  allied  manuscripts 
possibly  by  transfer  from  the  opening  of  line  282.  Note  the  adoption  of  a  GgFf 
reading  here  and  the  rejection  of  it  in  line  278. 

Line  298.  Critical  text:  Tho  was  I  war  wher  ther  sate  a  quene.  Both  editors, 
where  that  ther,  the  reading  of  Gg  and  of  the  arbitrary  and  contaminated  S.  Con- 
sidering the  idiosyncrasies  of  Gg  discussed  below,  its  isolated  reading  cannot  be 
adopted  here.  Note  the  consequent  "Lydgatian"  movement  of  the  line;  and  observe 
that  in  line  393  the  reading  of  GgS  is  ignored  by  both  editors. 

3 For  the  Caxton  print  (Cax),  Selden  (S),  and  Pepys  (P)  seo  list  of  manuscripts  on  p.  8. 

4 


Eleanor  Pbbsoott  Hammond 


Line  313.  Critical  text:  That  erthe  and  see  and  tree  and  euery  lake.  So  Skeat. 
Heath,  erthe  and  eyr,  etc.,  the  reading  of  GgFf  alone. 

Line  317.  Critical  text:  Devyseth  Nature  of  suche  array  and  face.  Both 
editors  omit  suche,  as  do  GgFf.  This  reading  is  opposed  by  the  other  division 
of  A  and  by  C.  It  may  be  easy  to  argue  a  coincident  insertion  of  suche  by  C  and  A*, 
under  the  influence  of  line  318. 

Line  325.  Critical  text:  That  eten  as  that  nature  toolde  enclyne.  Both  editors, 
hem  instead  of  that,  the  reading  of  GgFfCax. 

Line  380.  Critical  text:  That  hoot  colde  hevy  lyght  moiste  and  drye.  Skeat 
inserts  an  and,  found  in  no  manuscript,  before  moiste;  this  he  brackets.  Heath 
inserts  the  and  without  brackets. 

Line  389.  Critical  text :  With  youre  makes  as  I  prik  yow  with  plesaunce.  Both 
editors  drop  the  opening  with,  as  do  GgFf.  Note  that  in  line  385,  however,  the  Gg 
FfLtCax  reading,  I  wol  you  spede,  is  passed  by  both  editors  in  favor  of  the  general  I 
wol  me  spede. 

Line  396.  Critical  text:  The  whiche  I  have  formed  as  ye  may  see.  GgFf 
omit  the  opening  The,  a  reading  not  adopted  by  Skeat  or  Heath.  Neither  is  the  wet, 
which  these  two  manuscripts  show  before  see,  taken  by  the  editors;  but  cf.  their 
procedure  in  line  389.  Skeat  alters  the  word-order  to  formed  have,  marking  his 
change  by  a  dagger ;  Heath  takes  the  yformed  of  Pepys,  there  written  Iformed. 

Line  426.  Critical  text:  Hauyng  rewarde  oonly  to  my  trouthe.  Heath,  And 
havyng  reward,  etc.,  the  reading  of  CaxGg  also  showing  the  And,  with  a  different 
word-order.     Skeat  inserts  a  bracketed  al  before  oonly. 

Line  452.  Critical  text :  Or  atte  lest  I  love  hyr  as  wel  as  ye.  So  Skeat.  Heath 
omits  hyr,  as  do  GgCaxS. 

Line  473.  Critical  text:  Thise  twenty  wynter  and  as  wel  happen  may.  Both 
editors  omit  a^,  taking,  in  this  respect,  the  reading  of  C  and  of  the  careless  sub-group 
HRS.  As  we  shall  see  below,  the  distinction  of  C  from  A  is  frequently  because  of 
omission  by  the  former;  and  it  is  more  credible  to  suppose  that  the  A  archetype 
showed  as,  omitted  by  HRS,  than  that  two  branches  of  A  should  independently  insert 
as.  Considering,  then,  the  tendency  of  C  to  omit,  we  retain  the  A  reading.  Both 
editors  print  winter,  passing  over  the  yere  of  GgCax ;  note  their  procedure  in  line  54. 

Line  487.  Critical  text:  Who  that  hadde  leyser  and  kunnynge.  Skeat,  Whoso 
that,  etc.,  bracketing  the  so,  which  appears  only  in  Jo,  and  there  in  the  form  Whoso 
hath,  without  any  that.    Heath's  line  is  like  Skeat's,  but  without  the  brackets.  Cf.  380. 

Line  490.  Critical  text:  Til  dounward  went  the  sonne  wonder  faste.  Both 
editors  take  the  drow  of  Gg  instead  of  went.  Note,  however,  that  in  line  497  they 
both  print  For  ye  or  nay  withoiiten  any  preve,  when  the  Gg  reads  othir  preve. 

Line  503.  Critical  text:  And  wol  sey  my  veyrdit  faire  and  swythe.  Both  editors. 
And  I  wol  sey,  the  reading  of  Gg  and  of  the  untrustworthy  manuscripts  Cax  and  S. 
Note  the  I  in  line  502. 

6 


6         Text  op  Chaucer's  Parlement  of  Foules 

In  line  506,  as  in  lines  567,  583,  629,  647,  661,  670,  and  672,  Heath  adopts  the 
isolated  readings  of  Gg,  Skeat  agreeing  with  the  critical  text.  The  reading  in  line 
629  is  supported  by  Jo. 

Line  543.  Critical  text:  For  sirs  taketh  noght  agrefe  I  pray.  Both  editors 
adopt  the  Gg  reading,  with  ne  before  taketh. 

Line  564.  Critical  text:  And  herkeneth  which  a  reson  I  shal  forth  brynge 
Both  editors  take  the  Gg  reading  with  omitted  forth. 

Line  569.  Critical  text :  Quod  the  sperhauke  neuer  mote  she  thee.  Heath  prints 
the  after  Quod,  the  reading  of  TD. 

Line  585.  Critical  text:  Yet  let  hym  serve  hir  euer  tyl  he  be  dede.  So  Skeat. 
Heath  shows  a  reading  of  no  manuscript,  P  being  nearest  it.  He  prints  serven  hir  til 
he,  etc. ;  P  thus,  but  with  no  n  on  the  infinitive.  Gg  shows  a  smooth  metrical  reading, 
seme  hire  til  that  he,  but  Heath  unexpectedly  disregards  this.  See  his  procedure 
noted  in  line  506  and  elsewhere. 

In  line  594,  where  Skeat  follows  the  main  group — plus  the  opposed  sub-group — 
reading  duk,  Heath  takes  the  reading  gos,  disregarding  not  only  the  weight  of 
authority,  but  also  the  agreement  of  Gg  with  that  authority. 

In  line  602  both  editors  follow  GgCax  in  printing  nat  instead  of  neyther;  but 
in  line  611  neither  editor  adopts  the  Gg  reading  thanne  after  seyde.  In  line  621, 
again,  both  editors  take  the  GgCax  the  eleccion  instead  of  hir  eleccion. 

Line  620.  Critical  text:  But  fynally  this  ys  my  conclusyon.  So  Skeat.  Heath 
omits  ys,  thus  offering  a  reading  found  in  no  manuscript. 

Line  626.  Critical  text:  Than  wol  I  doon  this  fauour  to  hir  that  she.  Both 
editors  take  the  Gg  reading. 

Line  637.  Critical  text:  That  to  yow  hit  ought  to  been  a  suffisaunce.  Both 
editors  follow  GgCax  in  omitting  hit. 

Line  641.  Critical  text:  As  is  euerych  other  creature.  Both  editors  show  an 
opening  Lyk  found  only  in  Jo.  The  normal  though  headless  Ff  and  erratic  Gg 
readings  are  here  both  passed  over. 

In  line  644  the  Gg  is  passed  in  favor  of  Ff  and  the  majority.  Cf.  Heath's 
procedure  as  noted  on  line  506  and  elsewhere,  from  which  he  again  deviates  in  line  654. 

The  roundel  is  freely  handled  by  both  editors.* 

It  will  appear  from  the  above  notes  on  the  editorial  methods  of  Professor  Skeat 
and  Mr.  Heath  that  the  manuscript  Gg  receives  from  them  an  especially  peculiar 
treatment,  being  now  fully  accredited,  now  suddenly  discredited;  and  the  interest 
which  this  manuscript  consequently  acquires  for  us  is  increased  by  noting  a  set  of 
cases  in  which,  either  alone  or  with  slight  support,  manuscript  Gg  presents  a  reading 
that  appeals  to  us  on  literary  or  metrical  grounds.     Such  cases  are: 

Line  166.     Manuscript  Gg:  And  demyn  yit  wher  he  do  bet  or  he;  manuscript 

*The  questions  regarding  the  roundel,  its  omission,  insertion,  or  distortion,  will  not  be  here  discussed. 

6 


Eleanob  Pbesoott  Hammond 


Jo:  And  to  deme,  etc.;  manuscript  S:  And  deme,  etc.     All  other  manuscripts  show 
the  third  singular  of  the  verb,  which  Skeat  retains,  Heath  taking  the  infinitive. 

Line  232.  Manuscript  Gg:  Aboute  that  temple  daunsedyn  alwey.  No  other 
manuscript  shows  the  trisyllabic  plural. 

Line  363.     Manuscript  Gg:  The  rauen  toys  the  crowe  wit  vois  of  care.     Ff  omits 
toys;  all  other  manuscripts  omit  the  epithet  and  also  show  the  plural  forms  rauenya,  . 
Crowes. 

Line  460.  Manuscript  Gg:  Aa  wel  as  that  myn  wit  can  me  suffyse.  No  other 
manuscript  shows  that.     Both  editors  print  it 

Line  551.  Manuscript  Gg:  Were  sittyngest  for  hire  If  that  he  teste.  No  other 
manuscript  but  S  shows  the  superlative,  and  it  in  the  form  best  sitting.  Observe  the 
superlatives  in  the  three  lines  preceding.  Both  editors  print  the  Gg  adjective,  but 
ignore  the  Gg  he  (other  manuscripts  her). 

Line  613.  Manuscript  Gg:  That  broughte  the  forth  thow  reufulles  glotoun. 
Both  editors  print  a  bracketed  rewthelees,  derived  partly  from  this  manuscript,  partly 
from  Pepys.     All  other  manuscripts  rewful. 

Line  632.  Manuscript  Gg:  If  I  were  resoun  certis  thanne  wold  I.  All  other 
manuscripts  omit  certis. 

Line  655.  Manuscript  Gg:  Quod  tho  Nature  heere  is  no  more  to  seye.  Other 
manuscripts  show  no  tho,  except  H. 

Though  manuscript  Gg  is  not  the  only  manuscript  of  which  the  isolated  testimony 
has  been  accepted  by  Chaucerian  editors  —  witness  the  participial  form  of  P  in  line  396, 
the  Jlyes  of  R  in  line  353,  the  like  of  Jo  in  line  641  —  yet  no  manuscript  but  this  has 
received  from  the  editors  of  this  poem  such  frequent  and  distinguished  honor.  When 
we  observe,  however,  that  it  is  at  times  entirely  discredited  by  the  same  editors,  we 
recognize  that  an  especial  part  of  our  investigation  must  be  an  inquiry  into  the 
individual  peculiarities  and  genealogical  position  of  manuscript  Gg.  External  com- 
bine with  internal  idiosyncrasies  to  render  this  investigation  necessary;  the  Gg  is 
the  only  manuscript  showing  the  A  version  of  the  prologue  to  the  Legend  of  Good 
Women;  this  fact,  with  others  equally  noteworthy,  and  its  probable  early  date,  indicate 
a  close  relationship  to  the  true  Chaucerian  text;  while  its  occasional  flagrant  lapses 
and  evidently  tinkered  text  point  to  a  confusion  of  treatment  by  its  immediate  scribe. 
A  complete  investigation  of  its  peculiarities,  however,  cannot  be  carried  through 
without  a  minute  examination,  here  and  now  impossible,  of  its  contents  as  a  whole,  their 
arrangement,  and  the  different  hands  in  which  they  are  copied;  and  the  same  is  true 
of  all  other  manuscripts.  Were  it  possible  to  put  side  by  side  the  Tanner,  Digby, 
Fairfax,  Bodley,  and  Longleat  manuscripts,  and  to  compare  all  in  their  entirety  with 
Ff,  I  think  that  an  idea  of  manuscript  relationships  as  wholes  might  be  obtained 
which  would  perhaps  modify  and  enlarge  the  genealogical  schemes  constructed  by 
editors  of  Chaucer  and  Lydgate,  as  well  as  that  here  offered.    With  this  consciousness 

7 


Text  of  Chaucer's  Parlement  of  Foules 


in  mind,  I  have  felt  an  especial  hesitation  in  outlining  the  subjoined  genealogy;  for 
it  seems  to  me  that  the  next  move  in  Chaucerian  study  will  be  in  the  direction  to 
which  I  have  just  alluded,  and  that  such  a  move  will  in  all  likelihood  render  these 
attempts  of  small  avail.  Further,  let  it  be  said  that  the  purpose  of  this  examination 
is  not  to  contravene  the  possibility  or  the  need  of  conjectural  emendation  in  Chaucerian 
text  construction,  but  to  discriminate  between  a  text  so  emended  and  a  text  adhering 
rigidly  to  the  existing  evidence. 

The  manuscripts  of  the  Parlement  of  Foules,  fifteen  in  number,  are  as  follows : 

Gg  4,  27  (University  Library,  Cambridge),  referred  to  here  as  Gg. 

Ff  I,  6,  of  the  same  library,  referred  to  here  as  Ff. 

Hh  4, 12,  of  the  same  hbrary,  referred  to  here  as  Hh, 

R  3,  19  (Trinity  College,  Cambridge),  referred  to  here  as  R. 

Pepys  2006  (Magdalen  College,  Cambridge),  referred  to  here  as  P. 

St.  John's  LVII  (St.  John's  College,  Oxford),  referred  to  here  as  Jo. 

Fairfax  16  (Bodleian,  Oxford),  referred  to  here  as  F. 

Bodley  638  (Bodleian),  referred  to  here  as  B. 

Tanner  346  (Bodleian),  referred  to  here  as  T. 

Digby  181  (Bodleian),  referred  to  here  as  D. 

Laud  416  (Bodleian),  referred  to  here  as  Ld. 

Selden  B  24  (Bodleian),  referred  to  here  as  S. 

Harley  7333  (British  Museum)  referred  to  here  as  H. 

Longleat  181  (Marquess  of  Bath),  referred  to  here  as  Lt. 

The  original  of  the  Caxton  print  (University  Library,  Cambridge),  referred  to  here  as  Cax. 

All  are  studied  from  the  Chaucer  Society's  reprints. 

Of  these  manuscripts  the  major  part  are  substantially  complete.  Selden,  a 
recension  strongly  tinged  with  Scotticisms,  and  constantly  arbitrary  in  its  renderings, 
is  made  use  of  here  only  to  line  601;  beyond  that  point  it  is  spurious.  Pepys  is 
incomplete  after  line  667 ;  Hh  and  Laud  are  fragments,  of  365  and  142  lines  respect- 
ively; and  B  lacks  a  number  of  stanzas,  comprising  lines  1-22  and  157-99. 

Parallelizing  these  texts,  I  find  a  sharp  divergence  into  two  main  groups,  which 
I  term  A  and  C.  Into  the  A  group  fall  manuscripts  Gg,  Ff,  H,  R,  Jo,  Ld,  S,  Hh,  P, 
and  Cax;  into  the  C  group,  manuscripts  F,  B,  T,  Lt,  and  D. 

This  division  is  made  upon  the  basis  of  the  following  readings: 


Line  3,  A  dreadful 

C  blissful 

Line  55,  A  after 

C  when 

5, 

uxmderful 

dreadful 

58, 

the  hevens 

hevens 

5, 

astonyeth 

astonyeth  so 

64, 

bade  (or  said) — 

syn    bade — see 

13, 

I  dare 

dare  I 

69, 

shuld 

shal 

26, 

(as)  of  this 

of  my  first 

70, 

is  doon 

was  doon 

29, 

make  of  mencion 

make  mencion 

72, 

into  that 

to 

30, 

as  I  shal  telle 

I  shal  you  telle 

75, 

Shalt  not 

Shalt  neuer 

32, 

seven  it  hadde 

it  hadde  seven 

84, 

send  us  (or  thee) 

send  each  lover 

35, 

say 

tell 

107, 

I  had  red 

I  red  had 

37, 

In — meteth 

Into — mette 

110, 

totorne 

al  totorne 

43, 

tellith  it  (or  he) 

told  he  him 

135, 

strokis 

stroke 

44, 

shewed 

yshewed 

137, 

neuer  tree  shal 

tree  shal  nev^r 

50, 

folk 

the  folk 

138, 

to 

unto 

Elbanob   Pbesoott   Hammond 


Line  149,  A  aette 

C  ysette  or  is  set  Line  233,  A 

I  som  ther  were 

C  som  were 

178, 

boxtre  piper 

box  pipe  ire 

234, 

wer  gay 

gay 

188, 

that  moimmen 

and  swimming 

237, 

of  doves  white 

satv  I  white 

192, 

so  ov  8om 

that 

238, 

Sitting— 100  (or  1,000)  Of  doves 1 

194, 

al  aboute 

aboute 

240, 

sat  with  a 

sat  a 

206, 

wex  or  VX18 

growen 

241, 

by  her  side 

her  beside 

209, 

than  man 

no  man 

250, 

and  wel 

wel 

215, 

her 

hard 

338, 

hardy  sparhawk 

sparhawk 

217, 

for  to 

to 

436, 

al  be 

al  though 

221, 

do  before  (or  by  force)  go  before 

501, 

said 

said  tho 

222, 

I  will 

I  shall 

544, 

may  not  go 

may  not 

229, 

shall  not  here 

shall  not 

666, 

brought 

wrought 

100 


While  making  this  division,  several  noteworthy  facts  become  evident:  first,  the 
marked  decrease  in  group  divergences  after  line  250;  secondly,  the  fact  that  in  several 
cases  the  difference  of  group  C  from  group  A  is  due  to  an  omission  by  the  former 
archetype;  thirdly,  that,  owing  to  this  and  other  reasons,  the  text  of  the  A  archetype 
was  probably  nearer  to  the  ultimate  original  verbally.  Such  additional  reasons  I  find 
in  cases  of  this  sort:  The  original  of  line  221  is,  in  the  Teseide,  VII,  stanza  55,  Di 
fare  altrui  a  forza  far  follia.  The  reading  do?i  by  force  .  ...  to  donfolye  is  there- 
fore beyond  a  doubt  the  Chaucerian  line;  the  C  archetype  not  only  dropped  a  letter 
from  be  force,  making  it  he  fore,  as  did  the  GgFf  ancestor,"  but  under  the  pressure 
of  this  adverbial  idea  changed  don  to  gon.  The  confusion  of  pronouns  in  line  43, 
where  some  A  manuscripts  show  a  similar  slip,  the  misunderstanding  in  line  64,  and 
the  meaningless  inversion  in  line  178  are  other  cases  which  have  led  me  to  adhere, 
in  writing  out  a  critical  text,  to  the  readings  of  the  A  archetype  when  that  and  C  are 
opposed.     The  orthography  to  be  adopted  is,  however,  another  question. 

Proceeding  to  classify'  the  C  group,  we  note  at  once  the  distinction  of  BF  from 
DLtT;  cf.  lines  56, 106,  *108  (omission  by  FB),  126, 154,  208,  214,  224,  236,  278,  295, 
303  (omission  by  DLtT),  *383  (omission  by  FB),  *512,  612,  628,  669.  Cf.  also  the  colo- 
phon of  these  two  manuscripts,  and  the  presence  of  the  French  phrase  after  stanza  97. 

That  F  is  not  derived  from  B  may  be  argued  from  lines  27,  63,  140,  206,  313 — 
omissions  by  B  alone — and  from  the  misreadings  and  slight  insertions  of  B  not  appear- 
ing in  F;  cf.  Unes  37,  72,  231,  263,  335,  364,  394,  395,  504,  556,  585,  637,  688.  For  the 
converse,  the  independence  of  B  from  F,  the  evidence  is  very  scanty,  the  verbal  and 
even  orthographical  agreement  of  the  two  manuscripts  being  exceedingly  close.  The 
divergences  of  the  two  in  lines  152,  216,  253,  263,  551,  590,  637  argue  little  or  nothing 
for  or  against  B's  derivation  from  F;  the  slips  of  F  in  lines  359,  381,  420,  436,  652 
might  possibly  be  emended  by  the  careful  Bodley  scribe;  but  lines  *201,  *476,  and  in 
less  measure  358  —  Bodley's  avoidance  of  omission  made  by  Fairfax — seem  to  point 
to  independent  transcription  of  a  common  originaL    See  also  line  652.     Although  the 


&In  line  80  the  GgFf  ancestor  also  slipped  a  letter, 
writing  "  Shol  whirle  aboate  |>ere  al  wey  in  peyne,"  instead 


of  \>€r\>c,  the  erthe,  a  form  shown  in  C,  and  changed  by  A* 
to  the  world,  probably  by  influence  of  line  81. 

*  Starred  line-numbers  indicate  important  instances. 


10        Text  of  Chaucer's  Parlement  of  Foules 

hypothesis  of  two  extremely  careful  scribes  may  at  first  glance  appear  to  require  a 
double  amount  of  credulity,  the  steady  accuracy  of  the  Bodley  scribe  is  no  more 
striking  on  the  theory  of  independent  transcription  than  it  is  on  the  theory  of  tran- 
scription from  Fairfax.  I  have  therefore  dissented  from  Mr,  Furnivall's  conjecture 
that  Fairfax  may  be  the  source  of  Bodley,  and  assumed  for  these  two  manuscripts 
independent  transcription  from  an  ancestor  separate  from  the  ancestor  or  ancestors 
of  DLtT.  Before  turning  to  consider  these  three  manuscripts,  we  note  the  rigid 
mechanical  fidelity  of  F  and  B  to  an  accurate  original.  Note,  e.  gr.,  their  galoxye  in 
line  56,  their  will  in  line  214  already  commented  on,  their  Cipride  in  line  277,  where 
many  manuscripts  write  Cupide,  and  the  fact  that  in  none  of  their  divergences  from 
the  rest  of  group  C  is  the  difference  due  to  misunderstanding  or  to  arbitrary  deviation. 
Passing  now  to  study  the  interrelations  of  the  three  remaining  C  group  manu- 
scripts, we  observe: 

1.  That  Digby  cannot  be  the  source  of  Lt  or  T.  For  note  the  omissions  and 
misreadings  of  D  not  appearing  in  either  of  the  others,  lines  27,  54,  109,  119,  144, 
166,  *178,  ^202,  *220,  *238,  *245,  255,  *296,  *354,  375,  377,  389,  391,  426,  *438, 
460,  462,  493,  530,  540,  562,  573,  *582,  587,  644,  659,  666. 

2.  Similarly,  T  cannot  be  the  source  of  D  or  Lt ;  cf.  the  errors  of  this  manuscript 
alone  in  lines  ♦80,  93,  112,  *125,  169,  170,  177,  187,  189,  *274,  310,  *400,  404,  411, 
415,  438,  ^439,  448,  454,  461,  ^511,  516,  562,  *594,  *665,  *672,  *692. 

3.  Nor  can  Lt  be  the  immediate  source  of  either  of  the  other  two ;  cf.  its  diver- 
gences and  omissions  not  shared  by  D  or  T  in  lines  1,  5,  17,  *25,  27,  29,  *40,  *42, 
79,  81-82,  117,  136,  *139,  140,  156,  158,  175,  183,  203,  225,  *228,  *234,  256,  *262, 
♦286,  294,  ^307,  312,  329,  332,  ^335,  336,  348,  351,  ^352,  366,  372,  *379,  384,  385, 
390,  ^414,  417,  422,  428,  431,  436,  449,  ^462,  *493,  *494,  *504,  514,  *519,  *525, 
♦533,  ^537,  539,  557-558,  ^560,  570,  592,  601,  605,  606,  616,  634,  635,  640,  *658, 
669,  670,  ^676,  677,  679,  689,  691. 

While  making  this  investigation,  several  facts  become  apparent.  The  errors  of 
Lt  are  constant  throughout  the  poem,  and  are  very  largely  of  omission;  Tanner, 
though  showing  a  number  of  omissions,  some  ten  in  all,  errs  otherwise  only  in  two  trivial 
insertions  and  in  some  fifteen  scribal  errors,  of  which  but  one  or  two  {cf.  line  672) 
are  glaring ;  in  this  respect,  as  in  that  of  omission,  it  is  far  superior  to  the  heedless  Lt, 
and  its  tendency  to  miscopy  does  not  appear  until  eleven  stanzas  have  been  transcribed ; 
Lt,  on  the  other  hand,  showing  at  the  beginning  the  insensibility  to  rime  sound 
evinced  again  in  lines  ^139,  ^379,  404,  438,  484,  628,  669.  In  line  114  Lt  is  accom- 
panied in  rime-slip  by  D  and  T;  in  line  551  by  D;  in  all  these  cases  F  and  B  write 
the  correct  forms,  and  we  are  thus  led  to  emphasize  again  the  accuracy  with  which 
the  two  latter  are  transcribed,  and  to  recognize  that,  whatever  be  the  tendency  to  omit 
in  C,  it  must  have  presented  very  consistent  and  careful  orthography.  To  this  point 
we  shall  later  return ;  at  present  another  fact  regarding  D  must  be  observed. 

10 


Elbanob  Pbbsoott   Hammond  11 

Digby's  omissions  are  some  twelve  in  number,  its  insertions  two,  and  of  its 
some  nineteen  scribal  errors  only  one  or  two  can  be  considered  deliberate;  thus 
perhaps  line  64-1.  Its  omissions  are  more  serious  than  those  made  by  Tanner,  and 
its  intrinsic  value  is  thus  slightly  lessened;  but  this  tendency  to  omit  is  curi- 
ously paralleled  by  a  small  class  of  important  cases  in  which  D  shows  a  reading 
present  in  the  A  group,  and  apparently  blurred  by  omission  in  all  other  C  group 
manuscripts.  Such  cases  occur  in  lines  53,  244,  *467,  where  D  has  respectively 
the  how,  the  eke,  and  the  Nature  of  the  A  group,  not  present  in  F,  B,  Lt,  or  T. 
These  agreements  of  D  with  the  A  type  are  emphasized  by  the  reading  of  line 
*7,  where  D  and  the  A  group  show  Jlete  or  synke  as  opposed  to  the  wake  or 
wynke  of  FBLtT.  Slighter  cases  of  agreement  between  D  and  A  are  to  be  seen  in 
lines  28,  148. 

The  data  just  cited,  especially  line  *7,  point  to  a  union  of  FBLtT  in  opposition 
to  D;  and  as  the  bond  between  F  and  B  and  the  separate  position  of  D  have  been 
above  demonstrated,  it  would  seem  that  we  are  now  brought  to  a  genealogy  for  the 
C  manuscripts  opposed  to  that  printed  by  Mr.  Heath.  The  case  is,  however,  not  so 
clear;  a  close  examination  shows,  for  one  thing,  points  of  alliance  between  D  and  Lt 
Such  points  of  alliance  are  as  follows: 

From  line  75  on,  these  readings:  line  75,  FBT  and  A  To  comon  profit,  DLt 
The  comon,  etc.;  line  91,  DLt  omit  the  ek  of  FBTA;  line  98,  DLt  the,  FBTA  my; 
line  100,  FBTA  To  woods,  DLt  To  the  woode;  line  104,  DLt  change  the  general 
meteth  or  mst  to  dremeth;  line  127,  they  alter  the  general  men  goon  to  men  come;  in 
line  *142  the  A  reading  astonyd,  FBT  a  stounde,  becomes  for  DLt  the  infinitive 
stonde;  in  line  152  DLt  show  an  opening  Thus;  in  lines  161,  167,  190,  191,  196  slight 
points  of  agreement  set  them  off  from  FBT;  in  line  209  they  apparently  insert  a  he 
not  present  in  FBTA ;  in  lines  282,  297,  306  they  write  broke,  walked,  was,  as  against 
FBT  ybroke,  welk,  nas;  in  line  322  they  show  an  opening  On  not  in  FBT ;  in  lines  *387- 
90  they  have  the  rime  order  ordenaunce  —  governaunce,  while  FBT  have  governaunce 
in  both  lines.  Observe  the  A  readings.  In  line  457  they  read  in  any  wise,  FBT  having 
no  in;  in  line  468  they  omit  that;  in  line  *472  they  deviate  from  all  other  manu- 
scripts by  writing  they  that  been  instead  of  he  that  hath  been;  in  line  520  both  write 
loudenesse  instead  of  the  general  lewdenesse;  in  line  527  they  read  That  where  other 
manuscripts  have  The;  in  line  577  both  omit  her,  and  in  line  594  they  read  said, 
with  the  A  group,  FB  showing  quoth,  and  T  omitting;  in  line  *596  DLt  omit  gentil; 
in  line  619  they  write  an  opening  For  (from  line  618)  instead  of  the  general  And; 
in  line  642  they  change  dure  to  endure,  as  does  manuscript  R;  in  line  652  they  read 
This  is,  FBT  Thi^. 

These  facts  indicate  a  union  DLt  after  line  75  at  least,  while  the  Koch-Heath 
genealogy  indicates  an  opposition  DLtT  to  FB,  and  within  the  group  DLtT  a  special 
bond  LtT.  The  evidence  adduced  by  Koch  for  this  division  is  as  follows:  lines  3, 
7,  96,  106,  108,  152,  278.     (Anglia,  loc.  cit.) 

11 


12        Text  of  Chaucer's  Parlement  of  Foules 

Of  these  examples,  I  find  that  the  adjective  of  line  3  shows  merely  the  divergence 
of  A  and  C,  Fairfax  plainly  erring,  and  Bodley  not  presenting  the  line  because  of 
imperfection  at  the  beginning;  line  7  has  already  been  cited  as  a  noteworthy  case  of 
FBLtT  diverging  from  D  and  A;  line  96  is  a  mere  question  of  the  use  or  non-use 
of  final  -n;  lines  106,  108,  and  278  prove  but  the  alliance  of  F  and  B,  DLtT  here 
going  with  A;  and  in  line  152  the  difference  is  in  the  use  of  whether  or  wher  that. 
F  and  B  show  wher  that,  Lt  where,  D  whedir,  T  whether  that;  if  this  isolated  example 
proves  anything,  it  is  the  alliance  of  T  with  FB. 

These  cases  are  cited  by  Koch  "  beispielsweise ; "  in  Englische  Studien,  XXVII, 
he  has  extended  his  comments  on  the  condition  and  relationships  of  these  manuscripts 
by  stating  his  opinion  that  Digby  is  contaminated  with  some  manuscript  of  the  A 
type;  in  confirmation  of  this  he  mentions  lines  7,  62,  148,  387,  417,  460. 

Lines  7  and  62  have  been  above  noted  in  support  of  the  division  FBLtT  versus 
D  anterior  to  line  75,  In  line  148  D  and  A*  show  an  opening  For  not  present  in  A* 
or  FBLtT;  but  note  the  beginning  of  line  151  and  the  ease  of  independent  trans- 
ference. In  line  387  it  is  the  rime  treatment  in  which  Koch  finds  evidence  of  A 
influence  on  D,  and  also  on  Lt ;  these  two  manuscripts  here  agree  in  the  rime  sequence 
ordenaunce — govemaunce  with  the  sub-group  HRS  of  A,  other  A  manuscripts,  except 
Jo,  reading  governaunce  —  ordenaunce,  and  Jo  agreeing  with  FBT  in  having  govem- 
aunce— govemaunce.  If  these  readings  prove  anything,  they  prove  the  possibility 
of  independent  but  coincident  change  by  various  manuscripts.  In  line  417  D  and  A 
omit  an  and  present  in  FBT;  in  line  460  D  and  two  A  manuscripts  show  any  instead 
of  myj  the  A  manuscripts  in  question  are  P  and  Ff,  the  interrelations  of  which  will 
be  discussed  later;  note  that  the  rest  of  the  line  garbled  by  P  and  Ff  is  uninjured  in 
D,  that  the  visual  error  is  an  easy  one,  and  that  the  A  manuscripts  here  chancing  to 
agree  in  part  with  D  are  not  those  which  agreed  with  it  in  lines  387-90. 

I  cannot  find  in  these  examples  adequate  proof  of  A  influence  on  D.  Rather  do 
I  see,  in  line  *7  of  the  above  cases,  evidence  of  D's  retention,  with  A,  of  an  X  reading 
lost  in  FBLtT,  which  manuscripts,  up  to  line  75,  are  wholly  or  partly  opposed  to  D. 
Lines  53  and  62  show  this  separation  also;  after  line  75  Lt  is  allied  with  Digby,  as 
in  the  Anelida  text,  but,  because  of  its  marked  tendency  to  omit,  does  not  share  the 
readings  of  lines  244  and  467. 

It  remains  to  deduce  the  position  of  Tanner.  According  to  Krausser,  Anglia, 
XIX,  p.  212,  the  contents  of  this  manuscript  are  written  in  "  zeitlich  ziemlich 
auseinanderliegenden  Handschrif ten ; "  at  what  points  or  with  what  poems  these  differ- 
ences appear  I  cannot  at  present  say,  important  as  is  the  question  in  determining  the 
relation  of  the  manuscript  to  others.  But  of  the  three  poems,  Legend  of  Good 
Women,  Parlement  of  Foules,  and  Deth  of  Blaunche,  which  occur  in  that  sequence 
in  the  three  manuscripts,  F,  B,  and  T,  Mr.  Pollard  (Globe  Chaucer)  says,  in  com- 
menting on  the  first  :  "F  and  B  must  be  derived  immediately  from  the  same  original, 
and  T,  which  shares  most  of  their  glaring  faults,  from  the  original  of  that ; "  and  both 

12 


Eleanor  Pbesoott  Hammond  18 

Lange  and  Koch,  discussing  the  manuscript  genealogy  of  the  Deth  of  Blaunche,  draw 
out  the  relation  of  the  three  manuscripts  FBT  as  shown  in  the  accompanying  figure. 
In  this  they  are  followed  by  Heath.  Considering  now  the  fact  that  the  three  poems 
occur  in  like  sequence  in  all  these  manuscripts,  it  surely  is  reasonable  to  infer  that  all 
the  scribes  worked  from  one  and  the  same  archetype  in  transcribing 
this  set  of  poems;  and,  if  dependent  on  this  evidence  alone,  we 
should  assuredly  group  our  five  manuscripts  as  FBT  versus  DLt, 
deriving  the  T  at  a  point  higher  than  the  FB  original,  as  in  the 
Legend  of  Oood  Women  and  Deth  of  Blaunche.  What,  now,  is  the 
testimony  offered  by  the  text  of  this  particular  poem  ? 

The  heading  and  colophon  of  T  are  like  those  of  F  and  FB,  Lt  agreeing,  in  these 
respects,  with  D;  and  after  line  75  the  concurrence  of  FBT  in  readings  where  LtD 
diverge,  as  already  noted,  is  steady.  Whether  these  agreements  of  T  with  FB  are  due 
to  immediate  affiliation  with  their  branch,  or  whether  its  position  be  on  the  DLt  stem 
above  them  and  thus  free  from  their  special  errors,  remains  to  be  discovered.  Cases 
which  come  under  consideration  are:  lines  3,  8,  56,  59,  78,  119,  149,  154,  437,  466, 
512,  569. 

Line  3  is  an  interesting  study,  DT  read  awey  that  fleth;  Lt,  that  alwey  fleth. 
F  has  here  a  distorted  reading,  the  slyder  loy  that  alwey  slyd;  and  B  is  wanting.  In 
the  A  group  we  find:  GgFf,  alwey  that  slit  (slydeth);  HR,  alwey  that  fyltt  (Jleeth); 
HhCax,  that  alwey  flytt  (flit) ;  P,  alle  wey  that  slittej  JoLd,  that  alwey  slite  (slydyth). 
From  this  we  see  that  one  branch  of  A  (HhCaxHR)  has  /-forms,  R  showing  Jleeth — 
the  DLtT  verb — but  that  GgFf  and  PJoLd  have  an  .s-form  as  in  Fairfax.  The  con- 
fusion of  /  and  the  long  s  is  an  easy  one,  and  we  would  infer  in  this  case  that  A  read 
slity  the  manuscript  at  the  head  of  the  HhCaxHR  branch  changing  it  to  flit.  What, 
however,  did  C  read?  T  and  Lt,  which  four  lines  below  unite  with  F  against  D,  here 
go  with  D  against  F,  and  show  Jleeth;  the  soberly  accurate  Fairfax  garbles  a  reading 
as  nowhere  else  in  the  poem,  but  garbles  in  a  manner  which  compels  us  to  infer  that 
slyd  was  certainly  before  the  scribe's  eyes.  The  safest  deduction  appears  to  be  that  C 
also  read  slyd  or  slit;  that  the  DLtT  ancestor  passed  this  through  Jlit  to  Jleeth,  just  as 
the  R  manuscript  of  the  A  stock  did,  F  retaining  the  parent  reading.  Such  a  supposi- 
tion argues  a  bond  DLtT  at  this  point. 

In  line  8  we  have  an  agreement  of  TF  against  a  DLt  common  error;  in  lines 
56  and  59  orthographical  differences  of  FB  from  DLtT ;  in  line  78  an  omission  of  an 
important  word,  soth,  by  both  T  and  Lt;  in  line  119  a  retention  by  D  alone  of  a  word 
present  in  the  A  group;  in  line  149  there  is  a  slight  orthographical  agreement  of 
TLt;  in  line  154  DLtT  have  a  me  not  present  in  FB;  in  line  437  is  a  TLt  omission 
of  be;  in  line  466  LtT  read  For  instead  of  the  general  Forth;  in  line  512  DLtT 
read,  incorrectly,  worthyest  instead  of  unworthyest;  in  line  569  T  and  D  both  show  a 
tho  not  present  in  FBLtA,  where  the  Lt  reading  may,  of  course,  be  caused  by 
omission,  as  opposed  to  the  DT  reading. 

13 


14        Text  of  Chauceb's  Parlement  of  Foules 

Of  these  lines,  *3,  56,  59,  154,  *512,  569  indicate  DLtT  kinship;  the  ortho- 
graphical correctness  of  FB  in  line  59  and  their  accuracy  in  line  512  as  opposed  to 
DLtT  make  these  two  lines  arguments  for  a  DLtT  stem  diverging  from  FB.  Line 
78  does  not  show  evidence  for  either  stem-division  against  the  other,  and  the  proof  of 
TLt  special  alliance  consists  in  their  common  omission  of  soth  in  this  line,  another 
common  omission  of  he  in  line  437,  and  a  slight  common  error  in  line  466.  Reviewing 
the  especial  DLt  bonds  already  given,  we  see  that  only  in  the  rimes  of  lines  387-90, 
as  in  heading  and  colophon,  is  T  after  line  75  so  distinctly  with  FB  as  to  unite  it 
with  that  stem  rather  than  with  the  DLt;  all  other  special  features  of  DLt  there 
mentioned  can  be  ascribed  to  their  common  immediate  ancestor.     Of  especially  close 

bond  T  with  D,  line  3 — the  awey  instead  of 
alwey — is  the  only  noteworthy  case,  569  being 
probably  a  point  for  a  DLtT  connection. 

An  alliance  DLtT  versus  FB  is  now  suf- 
ficiently probable  after  line  75 ;  anterior  to  that 
point  the  aflBliation  of  TLt  is  partly  also  with 
FB;  cf.  lines  7,  53,  62.  From  about  line  75 
on  Lt  adheres  to  D,  while  T  perhaps  had  access 
to  an  FB  codex;  cf.  lines  387-90  and  the  colo- 
phon. 

From  what  has  already  been  said  regard- 
ing the  transcription  of  the  Legend  of  Good 
Women,  the  Parlement  of  Foules,  and  the  Deth  of  Blaunche  in  that  order  by  the 
three  manuscripts,  F,  B,  and  T,  it  will  appear  inconsistent  to  assign  to  T  a  closer 
kinship  with  DLt  in  one  of  these  three  texts  than  with  FB.  But  it  is  to  be  noted 
that  elsewhere  in  the  T  codex  the  Anelida  and  Lydgate's  Black  Knight  are  copied 
in  close  conjunction;  that  Krausser,  in  his  edition  of  the  latter  poem  [Anglia,  XIX), 
finds  D  and  T  connected  in  a  group  opposed  to  F  and  B,  and  that  the  Koch-Heath 
genealogy  of  the  Anelida  text  places  T  on  the  same  stem  with  DLt,  above  them 
and  opposed  with  them  to  FB.  Assuming  these  conclusions  to  be  well  grounded,  we 
have  the  possibility  that  in  the  Parlement  of  Foules  T  (and  Lt)  worked  partly  with  FB 
in  the  first  few  stanzas  as  in  the  poem  preceding,  but  then  for  some  reason  deviated  to 
use  the  copy  which  they  had  followed  in  transcribing  the  Black  Knight.  Further  it 
might  be  remarked  that  the  undetailed  genealogy  which  so  far  lies  before  the  student 
for  the  Legend  of  Oood  Women  does  not  preclude  the  possibility  that  the  diiBPerence 
of  T  from  FB  may  there  be  one  of  difference  in  stem,  as  here  indicated.  The 
freedom  of  T  from  FB  errors  in  the  former  poem,  alluded  to  by  Mr.  Pollard,  may  be 
because  of  a  difference  in  stem.  A  study  of  the  manuscripts  as  wholes,  and  of  their 
interrelations  as  Chaucer  codices,  will  perhaps  lead  to  the  construction  of  a  general 
tree  for  the  minor  poems. 

One  fact  appears  with  especial  distinctness  as  consequence  of  these  inferences: 

14 


ElbanobPbesoottHammonI)  15 

the  very  great  value,  intrinsically  and  by  position,  of  FB.     The  tree  is  as  shown  on 
the  preceding  page. 

THE   A   QBOUP 

Passing  over  now  to  the  texts  deriving  from  A,  we  observe  an  alliance  between 
manuscripts  Gg  and  Ff  as  opposed  to  the  other  manuscripts;  c/.  lines  22  and  24 
(rime),  46  (omission  GgFf),  62,  64,  ♦eS,  74,  ♦80  (see  footnote  ante),  84,  ^88,  115 
(c/.  Cax),  *119,  126  (c/.  C  group),  142,  148,  167,  168,  169,  186,  204,  205,  *206, 
♦221,  *238,  269,  ^284,  317,  325,  344  (omission  GgFf?),  352  (c/  Cax),  366,  368,  381, 
385  (c/.  Cax),  389,  396,  400,  480  (cf.  S),  594  (c/.  Cax),  642,  650.  The  decrease  in 
group-divergence  after  line  400  is  very  noticeable. 

Taking  up  first  the  larger  body  of  texts,  we  find  a  division  of  JoLd  from  HR; 
cf.  lines  2,  *4  (error  by  JoLd),  omissions  by  HR  in  8,  17,  19,  26,  a  JoLd  deviation 
in  10,  an  HR  deviation  in  14,  a  JoLd  change  in  22  and  24,  line  30  (omission  by 
JoLd),  34,  35  (slip  by  HR),  39  (deviation  by  JoLd),  ^41  (slip  by  JoLd),  43,  49 
HR,  56,  60  (insertion  by  HR),  67,  69  (omission  by  HR),  72  (slip  HR),  73,  74,  89 
(omission  by  HR),  96  (omission  by  JoLd),  *104  (deviation  by  JoLd),  106,  112,  117, 
121.  With  line  142  the  Laud  fragment  ends,  but  the  HR  differences  from  Jo  continue 
to  indicate  their  different  parentage:  cf.  their  omissions  in  lines  156,  *174,  *185,  219, 
♦249,  278,  408,  411,  425,  460,  495,  526,  548,  588,  ^654,  656.  Further  slips  by  the 
HR  ancestor  alone  may  be  noted  in  lines  144,  ^151,  159,  196,  201,  210,  224,  ^239, 
253,  305,  350,  369,  ^412,  ^454,  ^459,  477,  ^520,  534,  553,  ^556,  564,  666.  The 
carelessness  of  the  HR  parent  manuscript  is  evident  from  this  list. 

That  R  is  not  transcribed  from  H  may  be  proved  by  H's  lack  of  lines  296-302 
and  of  stanza  98,  all  present  in  R,  and  by  R's  avoidance  of  slips  or  omissions  made 
by  H  in  lines  7,  94,  249,  271,  285,  396,  440,  478,  483,  557,  616,  659;  that  H  was 
not  copied  from  R  is  plain  by  its  freedom  from  R's  numerous  omissions  and  still  more 
numerous  errors  or  deviations;  cf.  lines  1,  39,  43,  ^45,  46,  ^51,  80,  93,  101, 103,  117, 
137,  146,  152,  162,  163,  180-181,  194,  226,  229,  247,  248,  249,  306,  307,  353,  382, 
403,  414,  434,  458,  490,  499,  508,  519,  527,  536,  558,  590,  594,  601,  620,  623,  642, 
649,  674. 

That  Jo  and  Ld  were  transcribed  independently  follows,  first,  from  Ld's  freedom 
from  Jo's  omission  and  deviation  in  lines  3,  9,  28,  46,  48,  49,  50,  51,  53,  54,  56,  57, 
61,  68,  71,  76,  77,  79,  87,  98,  105,  109,  113,  114,  and  secondly  from  Jo's  immunity 
from  Ld's  slips,  lines  16,  17,  19,  27,  33,  52,  66,  67,  99,  116,  122,  133,  134,  137.  Jo's 
further  variants,  largely  of  omission,  are  exemplified  in  lines  143,  149,  163,  166,  169, 
172,  202,  206,  207,  209,  220,  226,  233,  250,  257,  260,  261,  271,  297,  299,  306,  313, 
315,  316,  324,  325,  326,  333,  336,  337,  338,  339,  342,  345,  349,  350,  355,  372,  380, 
382,  395,  398,  406,  418,  430,  433,  435,  440,  448,  464,  467,  468,  469,  486,  487,  491, 
496,  505,  516,  518,  521,  522,  524,  528,  542,  549,  550,  553,  560,  562,  563,  571,  584, 
588,  589,  593,  606,  609,  619,  623,  628,  641,  648,  665. 

From  the  above  it  appears  that  any  one  of  the  three  manuscripts,  HRJo,  is 

16 


16  Text  of   Chaucer's   Parlement  of   Foules 

inferior  in  accuracy  to  D  or  T  of  the  C  group,  that  the  pair  FB  of  the  C  group  is 
superior  to  any  one  of  these  A  manuscripts,  and  that  the  FB  ancestor  far  outweighs 
in  value  either  the  HR  parent  or  the  JoLd  parent. 

Numerous  as  are  the  errors  of  the  HR  parent  manuscript,  they  are  much  exceeded 
by  those  of  the  cognate  Selden  manuscript.  It  may  be  stated  at  the  outset,  with 
regard  to  S,  that,  aside  from  the  linguistic  corruptions  introduced  into  the  text  by  its 
northern  scribe,  its  readings  are  rendered  highly  untrustworthy  by  the  liberties  which 
have  been  taken  with  the  poem  in  transcription.  Examples  of  this  are  so  frequent 
and  so  flagrant  that  citations  in  proof  are  superfluous;  the  Selden  readings  cannot  be 
appealed  to  unless  supported  by  strong  evidence  from  other  sources,  and  they  are 
especially  dubious  in  cases  where  they  present  apparent  improvement.  For  it  is 
beyond  question  that  the  Selden  scribe  made  his  alterations  deliberately ;  his  changes 
for  the  sake  of  obtaining  northern  rime  would  alone  show  this.  Accordingly,  an 
isolated  reading  offered  by  S  is  of  no  value  in  a  critical  text;  and  an  agreement 
between  S  and  any  other  manuscript  bearing  traces  of  conscious  attempt  at  better- 
ment is  to  be  regarded  with  suspicion.  To  this  point  I  shall  return  when  discussing 
manuscript  Gg. 

The  place  of  S  is  in  the  sub-group  comprising  HR  JoLd ;  and  its  affiliation  within 
that  sub-group  is  with  the  HR  branch ;  cf.  lines  previously  cited  in  discussing  those 
two  manuscripts.  Its  freedom  from  characteristic  HR  slips  indicates  a  derivation 
from  the  stem  at  a  point  somewhat  higher  than  the  HR  parent ;  but  in  several  cases 
it  shows  a  resemblance  to  the  Gg  type.  These  examples  are:  line  166,  GgS  read  the 
infinitive  instead  of  the  third  singular;  line  393,  GgS  insert  an  adverb  before  voel; 
line  480,  GgS  change  a  word  to  avoid  identical  rime;  lino  551,  GgS  use  the  superla- 
tive instead  of  the  positive.  Such  agreements  may  be  due  to  contamination,  or  they 
may  be  due  to  independent  attempt  at  emendation;  the  latter  theory  is  rendered 
possible  by  the  different  adverbs  used  in  line  393,  but  does  not  seem  so  probable  in 
line  480.  In  either  case,  no  corroboration  is  given  the  Gg  by  these  Selden  readings. 
They  cannot  have  been  those  of  A^  since  no  other  manuscript  of  that  group  shows 
them;  if  they  are  due  to  contamination,  they  of  course  carry  no  weight;  and  if  the 
result  of  independent  change  by  S  and  Gg,  their  presence  in  S,  the  most  arbitrary  and 
regardless  of  all  our  texts,  is  directly  injurious  to  the  credit  of  the  Gg,  which,  as 
we  shall  later  see,  shows  some  tendencies  of  the  same  sort. 

The  Pepys  manuscript  is  full  of  slight  errors  of  a  sort  indicating  a  scribe  both 
careless  and  unconscious;  no  such  frank  tampering  with  the  text  appears  here  as  is 
continual  in  the  Selden.  Examples  of  error  are:  lines  7,  17,  18,  19,  *21  (omission), 
26  and  27  transposed,  omissions  in  26,  27,  29,  34,  43,  insertion  in  28,  errors  in  46, 
49,  51,  64,  72,  83,  84,  88,  98,  107,  112,  120,  126,  143,  145  (omitted),  175,  189,  192 
(omitted),  194,  196,  197,  200,  208,  209,  210,  212,  219,  220,  222,  228,  229,  236,  237, 
240,  256,  *262  (omission),  276,  278,  282,  296,  300,  303,  329,  348,  353,  370,  371,  379, 
383,  *385  (omission),  388,  397,  403,  410,  412,  420,  424,  431,  437,  439  (c/.  HR),  444, 

16 


Eleanor  Pbescott  Hammond  17 

445,  479,  482,  483,  484,  499,  504,  511,  514,  522,  523,  544,  559,  564,  *567  (omission), 
668,  572,  577,  *579  (omission),  584,  585,  588,  590,  692,  594,  ♦595  (insertion),  699, 
601,  ♦604  (omission),  606,  611,  615,  616,  618,  619,  638,  640,  642,  643  (omitted), 
•645  (omission),  ^651  (insertion),  654,  656,  659,  664,  666.  Few  of  these  omissions, 
and  still  fewer  of  the  deviations,  are  of  a  major  character;  but  the  dropping  out  or 
insertion  of  particles  and  unimportant  words  is  constant,  especially  the  tendency  to 
omit.  The  manuscript  is  intrinsically  inferior  even  to  the  Longleat,  and  is  about  on 
a  par  with  the  Jo. 

Among  the  A  group  manuscripts  the  affiliation  of  P  is  with  the  larger  body  of 
texts,  those  opposed  to  GgFf :  witness  the  readings  of  lines  49,  53,  62,  64,  ♦65,  74, 
♦80,  84,  88,  115,  142,  148,  206,  214,  221,  238,  284,  389,  etc.  Its  closer  relationship 
is  with  the  JoLd  pair,  as  may  be  seen  from  lines  3,  10,  *14,  *73,  96  (common 
omission),  102  (JoP),  ^104,  190,  260,  266,  298,  307,  ^320,  ♦327-8,  333  (common 
omission),  410,  414-419-440  (common  omissions),  ^456,  468  (common  omission), 
480,  516  (word  order),  ^521,  541  (common  omission),  ^558,  ^563,  594.  The  exact 
placing  of  this  manuscript  is  rendered  difficult,  not  only  by  its  possible  contamination 
with  the  Ff  type  (see  below),  but  by  the  fact  that  the  lax  and  slovenly  transcription 
of  Jo  is  hardly  sufficient,  after  the  evidence  of  the  Ld  fragment  is  withdrawn  (line 
142),  for  us  to  determine  the  continuance  or  non-continuance  of  a  bond  between  P 
and  Jo.  Also,  as  has  already  been  remarked,  the  deviations  of  the  groups  from  one 
another  are  so  much  less  pronounced  after  line  250  than  before,  that  the  proof  of 
separation  or  affiliation  is  beyond  that  point  scanty.  But  it  would  seem  that  P 
derives  from  the  JoLd  stem  at  a  point  higher  than  they;  c/.  lines  4,  5,  ♦lO,  ^22,  24, 
♦30,  39,  41,  52,  53,  59,  and  117  (orthography),  121;  its  freedom  from  Jo's  errors  in 
the  remainder  of  the  text  may  be  due  to  the  continuance  of  its  position,  or  may  be 
owing  to  the  neglect  of  Jo;  lines  ^320  and  336  may  be  noted  as  evidence  of  a  PJo 
bond.  A  possible  contact  between  P  and  the  Ff  type  will  be  discussed  in  speaking  of 
the  latter  manuscript  below.     An  agreement  PCax  is  line  175.     Cf.  line  511  ( ?). 

The  alliance  of  the  Hh  fragment  (lines  1-365)  is  also  with  the  sub-group 
HRSPJoLd,  as  is  evident  from  the  readings  of  lines  49,  62,  ^65,  ^80,  88,  148,  169, 
192,  204,  ^206,  ^221,  ^238,  271,  284,  ^313,  344,  354.  Within  that  sub-group  it 
cannot  be  classed  with  PJoLd,  because  of  the  readings  of  lines  3,  ♦lO,  ^14,  43,  52, 
53,  96,  104,  173,  222,  ^320,  336,  of  which  instances  lines  3,  14,  52,  53,  104,  and  222 
point  to  an  alliance  of  Hh  with  the  stem  terminating  in  HR.  But,  although  on 
nearly  all  crucial  points  a  member  of  the  larger  division  of  A,  the  Hh  exhibits  in  a 
few  cases  resemblance  to  the  GgFf  type.  Such  cases  are  as  follows:  in  line  53  the 
retention  of  the  word  worldes,  lacking  in  all  A  manuscripts  except  Gg  and  Cax;  in 
line  119  the  eke  of  GgFf;  in  line  126  the  fell  of  FfCax  instead  of  the  say  of  all  other 
manuscripts;  in  line  202  the  so  of  Ff;  in  line  278  the  ther  of  GgFf  PJo;  in  line  310 
the  ther  of  GgP  Jo  and  the  brid  of  GgFf  Cax ;  in  line  346,  together  with  C  and  Cax, 
the  (incorrect)  form  egles,  all  other  A  manuscripts  reading  eles. 

17 


18        Text  of  Chaucer's  Parlement  of  Foules 

This  last  example  cannot  be  taken  to  indicate  a  CHh  bond.  Such  cases  of  inde- 
pendent coincidence  occur  occasionally  in  these  manuscripts;  for  instance,  in  line  511 
P  agrees  with  the  C  group  in  reading  as  good  be  still,  other  A  manuscripts  having 
as  fair  be  still,  Cax,  better  be  still.  Again,  cf.  in  line  362  the  ful  of  Cax,  S,  and  Lt, 
apparently  carried  down  from  line  359 ;  or  the  insertion  of  most  by  D  and  Ff  in  line 
375 ;  or  the  LtFf  change  of  lord  to  god  in  line  379.  The  independent  writing  of 
egles  for  eles  by  two  of  the,  say,  thirty  manuscripts,  C  and  Hh,  is  not  surprising  when 
one  considers  the  constant  recurrence  of  bird  names  and  of  the  word  egle  in  the  poem. 
Note  the  change  of  faconde  to  faucon  by  the  PJo  stem  and  by  S  in  lines  521,  558. 

From  the  other  cases  above  given  we  infer  a  possible  bond  GgFf Hh ;  line  278 
and  part  of  line  310  might  be  taken  to  indicate  merely  a  position  of  Hh  close  to  A', 
the  HRS  differing  by  their  own  omission;  but  the  other  instances  cannot  be  so 
explained,  and  we  must  assume  one  of  two  things :  on  the  one  hand,  a  contamination 
between  Hh  or  its  immediate  ancestor  and  Ff  or  its  immediate  ancestor;  on  the 
other  hand,  coincident  and  independent  deviation  by  Ff  and  Hh. 

We  must,  on  the  theory  of  contamination,  posit  between  A*  and  Ff  a  manuscript 
retaining  many  A'  characteristics  lost  by  Ff,  the  Hh  contaminations  being  with  such  a 
text  rather  than  with  A*  or  Ff.  For,  to  take  examples  from  the  list  just  given,  the  so 
of  Ff,  line  202,  not  in  Gg,  is  present  in  Hh,  while  in  line  310  a  ther  omitted  by  Ff, 
retained  in  Gg,  is  present  in  Hh.  In  line  53  the  important  word  worldes,  present  in 
Hh,  is  not  transcribed  by  Ff,  but  in  line  126  FfHh  have  tell  instead  of  the  say  of 
Gg  and  all  other  manuscripts.  Gg's  agreement  here  with  other  texts  indicates  that 
A  read  say;  consequently  the  change  shared  by  Hh  took  place  in  the  special  Ff  stem, 
below  A* ;  such  a  fact,  together  with  Hh's  avoidance  of  some  Ff  omissions,  may  indi- 
cate the  existence  of  the  text  to  which  I  allude.  The  amount  of  agreement  is,  however, 
so  slight  as  to  permit  of  the  hypothesis  of  coincidence.     See  below  under  Caxton. 

The  errors  of  Hh  are  exemplified  in  lines  3,  12,  13,  17,  18,  21  {cf.  FfR),  22,  27, 
30,  35,  37,  43,  49  {cf  GgFf),  54,  56,  57,  58,  59,  64,  67,  68,  69,  71,  72  {cf  HR),  77, 
78,  80,  81,  84,  90,  94,  101,  104,  108,  109,  110,  111,  112,  134,  138,  143,  145,  148, 
150,  151,  154,  162,  167,  169,  172,  174,  176,  179,  180,  186,  *196,  199,  205,  207,  214, 
215,  219,  224,  225,  ♦226,  228,  *230,  244,  246,  247,  248,  251,  *268,  269,  274,  277, 
279,  293,  297,  299,  301,  306,  307,  313,  315,  328,  331,  333,  337,  339,  348,  350,  *353, 
361,  364.  Of  these  errors  some  fourteen  are  orthographic  carelessnesses,  of  a  sort 
indicating  a  scribe  whose  mind  is  not  following  his  work;  and  many  of  the  omissions 
{ca^  25)  are  trivialities  of  a  similar  character.  But  though  major  errors  are  not 
frequent,  and  evidence  of  deliberate  alteration  does  not  appear,  the  constant  slips  of 
the  text  and  its  possible  contaminated  condition  deprive  it  of  authoritative  value.  Its 
position  appears  to  be  in  the  HRS  branch,  above  those  texts. 

From  the  data  just  given  regarding  contamination  in  Hh,  it  will  be  seen  that 
Cax  shares  in  some  of  those  peculiarities.  Like  Hh,  also,  Cax  is  a  member  of  the 
larger  sub-group  of  A,  as  a  glance  over  the  crucial  readings  listed  for  Hh  will  show; 

18 


Eleanor  Pbesoott  Hammond  19 

and  its  nearer  affiliation  with  HRS,  though  deriving  higher  than  they,  may  be  inferred 
from  lines  8,  30,  35,  54,  60,  89,  150,  174,  190,  239,  249,  253,  *201,  ♦200,  *362,  414, 
495,  *553.  A  link  with  Hh  in  lines  53  and  340  has  already  been  mentioned,  and 
there  exists  also  a  series  of  points  common  to  Cax  and  the  GgFf  type.  Such  cases 
are:  lines  54  (Gg),  93  (Gg),  115  (A),  205  (A),  222  (GgFfCaxPJo),  285  (A),  •SOS 
(A),  328  (A),  *352  (A) ;  in  line  354  Cax  deviates  from  A,  with  all  other  manuscripts 
except  Digby;  383  (Ff),  385  (A),  387-90  (A),  439  (Gg),  452  (Gg,  common  omis- 
sion), *473  (Gg),  503  (GgS),  507  (FfA),  517  (Gg,  common  omission),  518  (Ff), 
594  (A),  002  (Gg),  021  (Gg),  044  (FfA).  The  influence  on  Cax,  in  lesser  points, 
of  the  GgFf  type  will  appear  from  the  above  list;  but  a  minute  examination  shows 
that  only  in  line  54,  in  the  yere  of  line  473,  and  perhaps  the  /  of  line  503,  is  there 
probable  a  contact  with  Gg  itself.  Caxton's  treatment  of  the  entire  line  473  and  its 
alliance  with  the  FfA'  reading  in  such  a  case  as  line  507  indicate  its  lack  of  any  bond 
with  Gg  in  especial.  It  appears  to  me  much  more  credible  that  its  few  A'  readings 
were  derived  from  the  A'  type  than  that  they  were  due  to  the  Q(g  type;  the  rendering 
of  line  54  may  be  proof  of  contact  between  Gg  and  Cax  early  in  the  poem,  but  the 
I  of  line  503,  shared  also  by  S,  may  be  derived  by  independent  error  from  the  line 
just  above. 

The  place  of  Cax,  so  far  as  it  can  be  determined  for  a  text  known  to  be  composite, 
is  on  the  HRS  stem,  above  those  manuscripts,  and  probably  in  close  contact  with  Hh. 
Its  errors  are  not  many,  but  it  shows  plainly  the  editorial  hand;  note  stanza  51,  where 
it  avoids  identity  of  adjective  in  lines  352  and  354,  as  does  A',  and  also  avoids  the 
identity  of  rime  seen  in  the  same  lines  in  A'  and  D.  Owing  to  its  frankly  editorial 
character,  the  Caxton  recension  can  be  used  only  in  support  of  evidence  already  credible. 
This  text  is,  indeed,  the  only  one  of  those  before  us  which  shows,  e.  g.,  in  lines 
352-4,  any  clear  trace  of  contamination.  From  Caxton's  own  words,  in  the  preface 
to  his  second  edition  of  the  Canterbury  Tales,  we  infer  that  he  might,  in  other  cases 
as  in  that  volume,  correct  one  text  by  another;  just  what  his  conception  of  "hurtyng 
and  dyffamyng"  Chaucer's  poems  "in  dyuerce  places"  was  we  shall  not  know  until  a 
close  comparison  of  the  two  editions  has  been  made.  But  in  the  occasional  agreements 
of  the  very  arbitrary  Selden  with  the  somewhat  arbitrary  Gg  it  is  quite  possible  to  see, 
not  contamination,  but  a  coincident  and  independent  alteration  of  the  text.  Simi- 
larly, in  the  hypothetical  relations  of  Ff  and  P  discussed  below,  or  those  of  Hh  and 
Ff  already  alluded  to,  the  evidence  for  contamination  is  of  the  frailest  kind.  No 
conspicuous  alterations,  no  insertions,  no  body  of  conflate  readings,  are  to  be  seen  in 
these  texts;  even  in  the  case  of  the  archetypes  A  and  C  the  tendency  of  one  of  them 
to  error  is  so  greatly  remedied  after  line  250  that  from  that  point  on  all  the  manu- 
scripts run  together.  The  general  steadiness  of  the  text  is  no  less  marked  than  the 
slightness  of  evidence  for  contamination ;  for  the  change  of  fowl  to  brid,  of  halfe  to 
syde,  of  say  to  tell,  might  well  occur  independently  to  two  scribes;  if  tho  inserted 
after  Quod  in  line  055  GgH  is  no  evidence  of  bond  between  those  manuscripts,  then 

19 


20        Text  of  Chaucer's  Pablement  of  Foules 

an  inserted  tho  after  Quod  in  line  569  TD  need  not  force  us  to  draw  those  two  texts 
together.  It  is,  of  course,  the  mass  of  agreements  which  tells;  but  when  we  observe 
that  at  best  these  agreements  are  slight  and  few  in  hundreds  of  lines,  we  hesitate  to 
insist  on  the  contaminated  condition  of  any  text,  save  perhaps  Caxton, 

With  the  two  remaining  manuscripts  of  this  group,  Gg  and  Ff,  we  reach  the 
most  critical  and  interesting  part  of  our  discussion.  As  has  already  been  mentioned, 
these  two  manuscripts  diflFer  from  the  rest  of  the  group  in  a  series  of  variant  readings 
which  grow  suddenly  and  noticeably  less  after  line  400  or  so.  This  lessening  in 
divergence  is  due  probably,  first,  to  the  change  in  the  Ff  copyist  at  line  414;  here  a 
new  scribe,  W.  Calverley,  begins  work,  and  completes  the  poem.  According  to  Mr. 
Fumivall's  note  at  this  point  in  the  Chaucer  Society's  reprint,  Calverley  "follows 
another  text;"  according  to  the  same  authority.  Trial  Forewords,  p.  54,  Calverley 
"follows  Fairfax." 

If  the  list  of  divergences  between  A  and  C,  already  given,  be  consulted,  it  will 
be  seen  that  their  differences  after  line  413,  after  line  250  in  fact,  are  very  slight. 
Only  five  can  be  cited  —  lines  436,  501,  511,  544,  666;  and  on  all  these  points  Ff  is 
with  the  A  group.  Further,  the  characteristic  FB  readings  of  lines  612,  623,  669  do 
not  appear  in  Ff,  which  is  also  free  from  the  line  *476  omission  of  Fairfax  alone.  I 
cannot,  therefore,  see  adequate  cause  for  arguing  Ff's  transcription  from  F  or  any  C 
manuscript;  the  closer  agreement  of  Ff  with  the  main  body  of  texts  after  line  413 
must  be  otherwise  explained. 

Up  to  line  414  the  union  of  Gg  and  Ff  is  generally  clear,  though  sometimes 
obscured  by  the  idiosyncrasies  of  the  two  scribes.  Ff  has,  in  the  ante-Calverley 
portion,  a  tendency  to  omission  and  to  distortion  of  the  text  second  only  to  the  Selden. 
For  cases  of  the  former  fault  see  lines  3,  7,  12,  13,  22,  24,  26,  48,  *49,  *53,  *57,  60, 
♦65,  66,  72,  87,  94,  95,  *102,  107,  ^117,  118,  119,  143,  146, 147,  150,  156,  *162,  163, 
165,  179,  Une  180,  *186,  *188,  195,  197,  198,  200,  219,  220,  229,  *234,  *242,  *259, 
270,  *285,  286,  298,  310,  *313,  315,  316,  318,  333,  340,  345,  348,  349,  361,  363,  388, 
393,  396,  440,  442,  456,  468,  477,  486,  509,  *531,  *554,  *567,  *604,  625,  637,  *657, 
658,  *660,  666  (c/.  Jo),  678.  Ff's  misreadings  and  variants  are  to  be  seen  in  lines 
5,  *6,  8,  11,  17,  18,  *30,  35,  36,  39,  40,  41,  43,  46,  49,  50,  54,  55,  58,  59,  61,  *67,  68, 
73,  74,  ^78,  80,  81,  82,  *93,  103,  *104,  105, 110,  *111, 112, 113,  123,  126,  133,  *139, 
140,  145,  147,  *149,  151,  152,  153,  *159,  166,  177,  178,  184,  190,  192,  196,  197,  199, 
201,  202,  209,  212,  213,  *214,  216,  221,  223,  224,  228,  230,  231,  238,  246,  247,  *248, 
252,  *253,  254,  256,  260,  262,  265,  *266,  267,  271,  274,  *277,  278,  279,  *280,  282, 
284,  287,  288,  293,  294,  295,  299,  300,  301,  304,  *306,  341,  343,  348,  353,  360,  366, 
375,  376,  #379,  380,  381,  ^382,  383,  386,  388,  390,  *391,  *392,  397,  402,  *408,  409, 
410,  *411,  412  and  413  transposed,  419,  430,  431,  439,  441,  451,  *460,  487,  488,  493, 
505,  *518,  520,  532,  533,  534,  543,  552,  563,  595,  596,  605,  *616,  *623,  *634,  652, 
655,  664. 

20  . 


Eleanor  Presoott  Hammond  21 

Not  only  are  the  divergences  of  A  and  C  very  few  after  line  250,  as  already 
mentioned,  but  within  the  A  group  the  diflFerences  between  A'  and  A'  become  minor 
after  that  point  The  Ff  scribe  continues  to  err,  in  the  lines  250-413,  as  previously; 
but  it  is  difficult  to  see  with  what  text  he  is  working,  because  of  the  approximation  of 
all  manuscripts  during  the  last  two-thirds  of  the  poem.  We  may  observe,  however, 
that  the  noteworthy  GgFf  agreements  after  line  250  are  common  omissions  in  lines 
344,  368,  389,  the  presence  of  torts  or  were  in  line  ^284,  a  corimon  deviation  in  line 
*313,  and  (inserted?)  wel  in  line  ♦39G,  common  errors  in  lines  *354  and  400,  the  rime 
of  line  ♦480  (c/.  S),  and  the  doke  of  line  594  (c/.  Cax).  Lines  366,  381,  642,  650 
are  trivial  coincidences,  and  317  may  be  an  omission  by  Ff.  Common  idiosyncrasies 
in  lines  284,  ♦305,  ^313,  352,  ^354,  ^396  show  the  GgFf  union  still  existent  from 
line  250  up  to  414;  beyond  that  point  lines  ^480,  ^594  still  hold  Ff  to  Gg,  and  the 
only  marked  likeness  between  Ff  and  any  other  A  text  is  in  the  case  of  the  Pepys. 

The  Pepys  manuscript,  as  already  mentioned,  shows  some  traces  of  contamination. 
Slight  likenesses  between  it  and  Gg  are  traceable  as  follows:  line  125,  GgP  syde, 
other  manuscripts  halfe;  line  152,  GgP  no  opening  So,  though  Gg  has  it  in  the 
margin  (H  also  omits  So) ;  line  198,  GgP  And,  others  A;  line  203,  GgP  brid,  others 
foul;  line  224,  GgP  with,  others  by;  line  632,  GgP  /,  Ff  A  it.  After  Calverley  begins 
transcription  with  line  414,  more  distinct  likenesses  between  his  Ff  text  and  P  appear; 
thus  line  ^460,  PFf  any  vnght,  others  my  wit;  line  487,  PFf  an  opening  But;  line 
518,  PFf  Cax  insert  ful  (from  line  517?) ;  line  543,  PFf  insert  it;  lines  567  and  604, 
PFf  both  omit,  but  in  a  way  which  indicates  that  direct  contact  did  not  take  place 
between  them;  in  line  644  they  agree  in  word-order  against  the  others.  In  line  567 
P  omits  love,  Ff  love  him;  in  line  604  both  omit  said,  P  also  showing  the  general 
and,  while  Ff  has  as.  The  reading  of  line  533  indicates,  as  do  the  two  lines  just 
given,  that  P  was  not  contaminated  with  Ff  direct;  in  line  533  Ff  has  matere,  P  and 
other  manuscripts  manere,  though  in  the  same  line  Ff  Jo  and  P  have  that  where  other 
texts  show  than.     In  line  632  Ff  A  show  it,  GgC  I. 

If  contact  was  not  directly  between  P  and  Ff,  either  the  P  immediate  ancestor  or 
the  Ff  immediate  ancestor  must  have  been  concerned,  and  in  the  former  case  Jo  also 
might  have  been  affected.  Cases  in  which  Jo  or  JoLd  do  show  GgFf  or  Ff  read- 
ings are:  line  2,  GgFf  JoLd  sharp — hard,  P  and  others  hard — sharp;  line  ^14, 
GgFfPJoLd  say,  all  other  manuscripts  can;  line  39,  GgFf  JoLd  of  the,  PCaxC  al  the; 
line  89,  GgJoLd  of  {cf  FfP  with),  other  texts  of;  line  105,  PFf  insert  that;  line 
203,  JoFf  insert  that;  line  260,  FfP  Jo  Of,  others  in;  333,  FfP  Jo  omit  that;  line  414, 
GgFf  P  Jo  show  no  ful,  present  in  C  and  in  the  other  A  stem;  line  440,  FfP  Jo  omit 
so,  line  468  they  omit  here,  line  505  they  insert  the.  Cf.  Gg  or  Ff  ancestor  and  P 
in  line  632. 

It  will  be  seen  that  in  no  case  except  the  trivial  line  89  is  it  necessary  to  weigh 
Gg  influence  on  PJoLd ;  the  question  is  how  the  agreement  of  Ff  with  P  or  JoLd  or 
PJoLd  is  to  be  accounted  for.     In  lines  2  and  39,  P  goes  with  other  manuscripts,  JoLd 

21 


22        Text  of  Chaucer's  Parlement  of  Foules 

agreeing  with  Ff ;  and  yet  the  reading  of  line  *14  shows  these  manuscripts  and  Gg  united 
in  divergence  from  all  other  texts.  The  remaining  cases  above  given  are  either  variations 
in  very  minor  detail,  or  agreement  in  omission  between  Ff ,  P,  and  Jo,  in  line  414  A\  P, 
and  Jo.  In  these  latter  instances  it  is  therefore  probably  the  PJo  common  ancestor 
below  A'  which  is  concerned,  as  in  line  *14.  We  have  then  to  explain  the  P  readings 
in  lines  2  and  39,  and  the  agreement  of  Gg  with  FfPJoLd  in  lines  14  and  414.  These 
last  two  bring  into  consideration  A",  or  rather  the  immediate  ancestor  already  posited, 
since  the  readings  of  Ff  in,  e.  g.,  lines  533,  567,  and  604  have  already  proved  that  Ff 
itself  did  not  influence  P;  and  since  the  participation  of  Gg  in  lines  14  and  414  indi- 
cates that  the  agreement  PFf  cannot  be  an  attraction  of  Ff  toward  P.  Contamination 
between  these  two  lost  manuscripts,  the  P  source  and  the  Ff  source,  may  thus  be 
looked  to  to  explain  the  minor  likenesses  between  Ff  and  PJo.  Too  much  stress 
should  not  be  laid  on  the  common  omissions  of  these  manuscripts  after  line  413 ;  it  is 
the  cases  of  lines  2,  14,  and  39  which  deserve  attention.  Line  2  is  a  matter  of  word- 
order,  GgFfJoLd,  not  P,  showing  sharp — hard;  in  line  39  GgFfJoLd  read  of,  P  al, 
the  latter  being  probably  the  ancestral  reading.  It  appears  to  me  that  it  is  easy  to 
overemphasize  the  importance  of  these  agreements;  the  misreading  of  al  to  of  is  a 
very  easy  one;  cf.  Lt  17.  The  common  change  of  can  to  say  in  line  14  by  GgFfP 
JoLd,  and  the  concurrence  in  some  omissions,  after  line  413,  by  FfPJo,  are  thus  the 
evidence  for  a  contamination  between  the  P  ancestor  and  the  Ff  ancestor.  Bearing  in 
mind  the  ease  of  omission,  and  the  occurrence  of  the  (incorrect)  say  in  line  13, 
whence  transference  to  line  14  might  be  ready,  I  do  not  emphasize  the  need  for  posit- 
ing a  bond  between  P  and  Ff.  Nor  do  I  see  reason  for  separating  Gg  and  Ff  in  the 
portion  line  413  to  end ;  the  greater  accuracy  and  sobriety  of  Calverley  and  the  agree- 
ments in  lines  480  and  594  seem  to  me  sufficient,  in  the  absence  of  any  proved  attrac- 
tion toward  other  texts,  to  retain  Gg  and  Ff  side  by  side. 

Turning  to  the  Gg  manuscript,  we  note  omissions  in  lines  *57,  77, 138,  324,  365  ?, 
450,  452?,  471,  517?,  ^520,  527,  *533,  *564?,  583?,  626?,  *627,  637?,  *670,  *678. 
The  shortness  of  the  list  is  a  very  noticeable  fact  regarding  this  manuscript;  and  I 
mark  some  of  the  references  with  a  query  if  the  change  there  be  not  rather  a  deliber- 
ate alteration  by  the  Gg  scribe.  This  question  is  raised  by  the  frequent  tendency  in 
this  copyist  to  vary  from  the  body  of  manuscripts,  and  to  vary,  in  a  number  of  cases, 
in  favor  of  what,  from  the  modern  point  of  view,  seems  superior  sense  or  superior 
metre.  Such  variations  may  be  observed  in  lines  27,  30,  34,  50,  54  (c/.  Cax),  *166, 
♦232,  298,  307,  *363,  393  {cf  S),  428,  452  (cf  Cax),  460,  *498,  517  [cf  Cax),  537, 
543,  ♦551,  557,  585,  613  (note  loss  of  es  in  614),  616?,  *632,  637  {cf  Cax),  *655 
{cf  H),  670,  *672.  But  we  may  also  note  constant  slight  changes,  sometimes  errors, 
sometimes  perhaps  deviations  for  a  fancied  improvement's  sake,  in  lines  12,  15,  22, 
76,  79,  82,  85,  110,  125,  160,  203,  207,  *214,  279,  284?,  305,  348,  *356,  *358,  379, 
882,  391  {cf  Ff),  394,  401?,  426,  432,  435,  *455,  457,  462,  476,  490,  497,  505,  506, 

22 


Eleanor  Pbesoott  Hammond  23 

553,  558,  560,  561,  pronouns  in  562,  563  and  569,  564,  573,  581,  593,  594,  598,  600, 
611,  614,  619,  626,  638,  644,  645,  647,  669,  674,  677,  689,  692;  and,  further,  a  body 
of  deviations  to  detriment  of  sense  or  metre  in  lines  31,  *65,  84,  132,  *137,  140,  167, 
170,  175,  204,  ^261,  *326,  ♦436,  *438,  471,  •507,  *516,  518,  540,  577,  583,  *596,  622, 
♦641,  ^662,  ♦663.  Such  facts  impair  the  value  of  this  manuscript,  and  render  its 
unsupported  evidence  of  questionable  worth  in  a  critical  text  construction. 

For  it  will  hardly  be  maintained  by  any  that  the  Gg  manuscript  in  itself  repre- 
sents the  Chaucerian  text ;  did  we  assert  that,  we  must  of  course  accept  it  bodily,  with 
its  unpleasing  as  well  as  its  agreeable  peculiarities.  Nor  can  it  be  maintained  that 
Gg's  immediate  ancestor  A  ^  is  the  archetype ;  for  such  a  theory  would  not  only  com- 
pel us  to  accept  all  GgFf  readings  against  A"C  —  note,  e.  gr.,  lines  80,  84,  167  and  168, 
♦214,  ^221,  305,  400,  etc.  —  but  it  would  leave  us  to  account  for  A'C  agreements 
against  A^  in  these  instances  and  in  such  cases  as  lines  88,  ^313,  ^354,  as  well  as  for 
agreements  FfA^C  against  Org  as  noted  above. 

The  ground  here  taken  is  that  the  scribe  of  the  Gg  worked  consciously,  and  in 
some  cases  successfully,  toward  the  betterment  of  the  text  before  him ;  an  interesting 
example  of  such  procedure  is  to  be  detected  in  line  358.  This  line  runs:  The  waker 
goos  the  cokkow  most  onkynde,  against  which,  in  the  Six-text  reprint,  there  stands  an 
editorial  note  telling  us  that  the  m  of  most  has  been  altered  from  en.  When  I  observe 
that  all  other  manuscripts  read  euer  vnkynde,  and  note  the  Gg  tendency  to  alteration, 
I  cannot  avoid  the  inference  that  the  Gg  scribe  here  began  to  copy  the  regular  ewer, 
and,  perhaps  feeling  that  a  monosyllable  would  give  a  smoother  line-flow,  changed 
after  he  had  written  two  letters.  Note  other  Gg  corrections,  lines  33,  97,  255,  260, 
336?,  385,  420,  422,  436?,  438?,  448,  450,  454,  478,  545,  561,  610,  627;  these,  how- 
ever, are  true  corrections. 

Should  it  appear  questionable  to  the  student  that  a  Chaucerian  manuscript  pre- 
sent cases  of  scribal  betterment  in  transcription,  recourse  may  be  had  to  a  parallel 
example  in  the  work  of  Lydgate.  In  Horstmann's  Altenglische  Legenden  (Heilbronn, 
1881)  there  will  be  found  at  pp.  376  fF.  a  reprint  of  Lydgate's  Saint  Edmund,  from 
manuscript  Harley  2278.  This  poem  was  written  on  the  occasion  of  a  visit  of  King 
Henry  VI.  to  Bury  St.  Edmunds,  at  the  command  of  the  abbot  of  the  monastery ;  and 
Harley  2278  is  the  royal  gift-copy,  beautifully  executed  and  illuminated.  At  the  foot 
of  each  page  Dr.  Horstmann  prints  the  variants  of  manuscript  Ashmole  46,  written 
"  perhaps  by  the  same  hand  as  the  Harley,"  and  "  seemingly  a  later  recension  of  the 
text  by  the  poet  himself."  This  later  manuscript  was  dedicated  to  Edward  IV.,  whose 
name  replaces  that  of  Henry  VI.  in  the  text.  Whether  this  revision  be  by  Lydgate 
himself  or  not  —  which  raises  the  unsettled  question  of  the  date  of  his  death  —  it  is 
curious  to  note  the  textual  changes  obviously  made  for  metre's  sake.  To  instance  but 
one  example:  of  the  thirty-six  headless  lines  occurring  in  lines  1-725,  twenty-three 
are  removed  in  the  later  recension,  either  by  the  rearrangement  of  the  line  or  by  the 
prefixing  of  And,  For,  Like,  etc.     Cf.  lines  286,  290,  300,  308,  314,  320,  362,  369, 

23 


24 


Text  of  Chaucer's  Parlement  of  Foules 


407,  421,  434,  436,  465,  467,  475,  580,  581,  582,  626,  637,  652,  707,  723.    In  several 
cases  also  the  "Lydgatian  caesura"  is  smoothed  out;   c/.  lines  468,  584,  606. 

I  see  no  imperative  reason  to  feel,  with  Dr.  Horstmann,  that  these  emendations 
were  made  by  Lydgate  himself.  No  modern  conscientious  scruples  would  deter  either 
Ashmole  46  or  Gg  from  modifying  the  text  before  him ;  and  careless  though  the  great 
majority  of  mediaeval  scribes  may  be,  we  have  no  ground  for  asserting  that  Chaucer 
was  the  only  man  in  two  centuries  possessed  of  metrical  sensitiveness.  Nor  should 
we  forget  that  when,  by  refusing  the  isolated  evidence  of  Gg,  we  are  compelled  to 
deduce  for  X  what  seems  to  us  an  awkward  line,  we  are  not  necessarily  arrived  at 

Chaucer  because  we  have 
constructed  X.  The  argu- 
ment from  Chaucer's  liter- 
ary mastery  to  his  metrical 
mastery,  so  long  tacitly 
relied  upon,  still  holds 
good;  and  the  possibility 
or  necessity  of  conjectural 
emendation  is  not  excluded 
by  the  construction  of  a 
critical  text.  It  should  be 
emphasized,  however,  that 
already  in  the  fifteenth 
century  scribes  could  try 
their  hands,  and  not  unsuc- 
cessfully, at  editing.  Such 
an  "editor,"  it  appears  to  me,  was  Gg;  and  his  isolated  testimony,  or  his  testimony 
when  supported  only  by  a  manuscript  either  contaminated  with  his  own  type  or 
visibly  tampering  with  the  text,  such  as  Caxton  or  Selden,  cannot  be  accepted  as 
decisive,  if  we  are  to  deduce  X.  Nor  do  I  find  myself  in  full  agreement  with  the 
valuation  of  A  as  the  better  group.  When  the  tendency  of  C  to  omit  has  been  allowed 
for,  as  also  its  occasional  slight  lapses  already  mentioned,  it  will  be  recognized  that 
the  C  group  offers  a  set  of  readings  certainly  equal  in  value  to  those  of  A ;  and  it  will 
also  be  recognized  that  the  complete  freedom  of  F  and  B  from  any  tendency  to  meddle 
with  the  text,  together  with  their  sober  accuracy  of  transcription  and  of  orthography, 
render  them  intrinsically  the  most  trustworthy  of  the  manuscript  pairs  as  witnesses. 
Compared  with  them,  the  Gg  is  as  Froude  among  historians. 

The  text  resulting  from  these  manuscript  studies  differs  from  those  already 
printed  in  certain  metrical  points,  notably  the  increase  in  the  number  of  headless 
lines,  and  the  presence  of  a  small  number  of  lines  moving  awkwardly.     In  such  a  line 

'  Caxton  is  probably  slightly  contaminated  with  the  Gg  type ;  S,  Hh,  and  P,  whose  contaminated  condition  has 
been  asserted  by  editors,  are  discussed  above. 

24 


Eleanor  Pbescott  Hammond  25 

as  632  the  editor  will  not  find  it  necessary  to  appeal  to  the  ceriis  of  manuscript  Gg; 
the  verse  may  be  read  headless  aa  If  I  wer^  resoun  than  wold  I.  The  objection 
which  might  be  raised  here  is  that  the  suggestive  emphasis  on  the  first  /  is  thereby 
lost;  and  such  a  line  as  Troilus  and  Criseyde,  I,  1052,  But  thou  wys,  thou  wost, 
thou  mayst,  thou  art  al,  would  be  instanced  in  proof  of  Chaucer's  nice  use  of  emphasis. 
An  assertion  of  omission  by  Ff,  A',  and  O  must  then  be  made  to  justify  the  adoption 
of  the  ceriis  into  the  text. 

In  line  363  an  editor  desirous  of  incorporating  in  his  text  the  Gg  The  rauen  wys  the 
crowe  tDit{h)  vois  of  care  would  have  to  emphasize  the  unlikelihood  of  Chaucer's  chang- 
ing from  singular  to  plural  and  speaking  of  ravens  and  crows  after  previously  naming 
but  one  bird  of  each  class;  he  would  point  also  to  the  possibility  of  rau£nwys  being 
misread  rauenys;  just  as  in  line  221  both  A*  and  C  dropped  a  letter  from  be  force 
and  read  before,  so  here  A'  and  C  might  lose  a  w  and  pluralize  crow  to  correspond 
with  rauenys,  while  Ff's  tendency  to  omission  might  explain  its  lack  of  the  adjective 
present  in  Gg.  The  Gg  readings,  however,  cannot  be  adopted,  when  isolated,  unless 
susceptible  of  some  such  justification;  and  the  critical  text  of  this  poem  lies,  generally 
speaking,  nearer  FB  than  Gg.  The  presence  in  it  of  headless  lines  is  hardly  surpris- 
ing. In  Herrig's  Archiv,  XCIV  (1895),  p.  443,  Professor  Zupitza  remarked,  speak- 
ing of  Canterbury  Tales,  D  2201:  "Ich  glaube,  dass  Chaucer,  wie  vor  der  ersten 
Hebung,  so  auch  gelegentlich  in  der  Pause  eine  Senkung  weggelassen  hat."  A 
comparison  of  Professor  ten  Brink's  disavowal  of  the  headless  line  in  Chaucer, 
made  in  1884,  will  suggest  to  the  student  the  change  of  opinion  on  this  point,  and 
will  perhaps  support  the  conclusion  foreshadowed  by  this  investigation. 

It  remains  for  me  to  acknowledge  the  advice  and  help  of  Professor  John  Matthews 
Manly,  at  whose  suggestion  this  study  was  undertaken ;  and  I  desire  also  to  express 
my  constant  sense  of  gratitude  to  the  scholar  who  first  introduced  me  to  Early  English 
work.  Professor  Arthur  S.  Napier,  of  the  University  of  Oxford. 


2B 


14  DAY  USE 

KBTUKN  TO  DBSKPKOMWmcH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT 

This  book  is  due  on  the  Ia„  ^..  ' 

-e„e;rit^r"^'--^'°"'''' 

..^.?T'^'^  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


LD  21A-50w-4,'59 
(Al724sl0)476B 


.G«neraJ  Library 


/ 


